The reason Ultron works as a villain is that his existence takes a relatively good man and ultimately destroys every meaningful aspect of his life. Pym is the ultimate tragic hero.

No way would Marvel be willing to deconstruct Stark like that, nor should they. And without that aspect of the story Ultron is just another killer robot.

I'd go with making Ultron some piece of rogue Stark tech, myself. Aside from not knowing whether the movie Ant-Man is going to be Eric O'Grady, Hank Pym, or Scott Lang, an artificially intelligent robot seems more like something Stark would build rather than someone like Pym, who's a biochemist. Just because Stan Lee didn't care/realize how specialized the sciences were forty years ago doesn't mean the movies shouldn't try to do better.

The problem they face is they already have a character with an advanced AI system. From a story-telling standpoint, to introduce another one in the MCU would be recycling.

Stark and Pym are two very different types of scientists. Stark is all about hardware, while Pym is more of a biochemist. I'd link his Pym Particles to a biotech form of nanotechnology that he develops after studying insects and microorganisms. And then make Ultron from that --- have him be more of a biotech construct than a nuts-and-bolts walking tin can.

That's confusing. So Stark might not be in A2? What are they hinting at with the whole "that's the wrong question?"

I think when the guy said it's the wrong question, he means we shouldn't be asking whether he's in the film or not but how big a role/how relavent he will actually be to the plot of the film. Tony might be incapacitated throughout the course of the film...we know Thanos is involved so there you go.

People have to keep under consideration that this MCU isn't a literal translation of the comics. They're trying to weave all these things together in such a way that the different pieces fit. It's an entirely different medium and depending on the rest of the cogs in play, it might make more sense from a storytelling perspective that Ultron is somehow birthed from Jarvis.

Not saying that is how it's going to go down, but alas ......

You don't have to use the impersonal "people" when you're directing something towards me. I can take it. And of course I realize that this isn't a direct translation from the comics. But I think you miss the point.

I and others have been arguing that from a storytelling perspective, it is important to keep in mind that Ant-Man indeed will be joining the MCU, which means that the opportunity is there to be true to the characters both as they have been written in the comics as well as how they have been/will be portrayed onscreen, and that is the better option.

We've seen the Stark-technology-turned-against-him storyline a few times already (and we'll see what happens in IM3). So a Stark-invents-Ultron/JARVIS-and-then-Ultron-turns-against-him story would probably be easy to do; I'm sure we can imagine him dealing with the guilt of seeing his technology turning into a vehicle of destruction, and his determination to right the wrong. I bet we can all picture it. Probably because we've seen it before. Twice (maybe three times).

Now picture instead a brilliant scientist, similar to Stark in intelligence and ambition, but wholly dissimilar to Stark in his lifestyle and attitude towards violence and war. Picture a gentle man who seeks the scientific means to resolve conflict and achieve peace through the ideals of pacifism and collaboration. Imagine his hubris as he fathers an intelligence based on his own brain pattern, foolishly intending to create the ultimate peace-keeping machine, and imagine his horror in seeing his creation mirroring the broken, violent humanity within himself, a monster bent on destroying the very thing he was looking to accomplish. And imagine that driving him into a deep sense of self-doubt and depression, not determination. This isn't a battle between Stark and his guilt--this is a battle between Pym and his very soul.

Now imagine an Ant-Man character who could have been that man but instead kind of has to sit around because it was convenient to have Stark create him. You're stuck making a movie about a Pym who creates shrinking/growing technology and doesn't have much else to do, and you're stuck making the movie about Lang instead because nothing is really driving Pym's character. In that scenario, I think you've missed a huge opportunity.

I think when the guy said it's the wrong question, he means we shouldn't be asking whether he's in the film or not but how big a role/how relavent he will actually be to the plot of the film. Tony might be incapacitated throughout the course of the film...we know Thanos is involved so there you go.

I think you've nailed it.
Conjecture, of course, so I won't spoiler-tag it, but maybe what happens is this:

*End of IM3: Tony test-flies his new Deep Space Suit. For whatever reason.....mysterious signal from space, possible new alien threat, he's going looking for Peter Quill for whatever reason --- anything. Turns out that Thanos is luring him into a trap, and captures him.

*End of GOTG: After all the events of GOTG, in which the gang presumably takes on Thanos unsuccessfully, they learn that he has an earthling captive: Tony Stark. Hell, just to mix it up even further: maybe he's even mind-controlled and enslaved to Thanos' will. Or maybe not --- that's just bonus stuff.

*Avengers 2: Tony Stark *is* out of commission. He spends, say, the first two reels as Thanos' captive, and is rarely if ever seen. That leaves the Avengers and the Guardians to team up and not only take down Thanos, but also the mission becomes much more "personal" (remember that quote....?), because they're trying to save their friend. Third reel features Tony back in action, and the whole gang gets to whale away on bad ol' Thanos.

You don't have to use the impersonal "people" when you're directing something towards me. I can take it. And of course I realize that this isn't a direct translation from the comics. But I think you miss the point.

I and others have been arguing that from a storytelling perspective, it is important to keep in mind that Ant-Man indeed will be joining the MCU, which means that the opportunity is there to be true to the characters both as they have been written in the comics as well as how they have been/will be portrayed onscreen, and that is the better option.

We've seen the Stark-technology-turned-against-him storyline a few times already (and we'll see what happens in IM3). So a Stark-invents-Ultron/JARVIS-and-then-Ultron-turns-against-him story would probably be easy to do; I'm sure we can imagine him dealing with the guilt of seeing his technology turning into a vehicle of destruction, and his determination to right the wrong. I bet we can all picture it. Probably because we've seen it before. Twice (maybe three times).

Now picture instead a brilliant scientist, similar to Stark in intelligence and ambition, but wholly dissimilar to Stark in his lifestyle and attitude towards violence and war. Picture a gentle man who seeks the scientific means to resolve conflict and achieve peace through the ideals of pacifism and collaboration. Imagine his hubris as he fathers an intelligence based on his own brain pattern, foolishly intending to create the ultimate peace-keeping machine, and imagine his horror in seeing his creation mirroring the broken, violent humanity within himself, a monster bent on destroying the very thing he was looking to accomplish. And imagine that driving him into a deep sense of self-doubt and depression, not determination. This isn't a battle between Stark and his guilt--this is a battle between Pym and his very soul.

Now imagine an Ant-Man character who could have been that man but instead kind of has to sit around because it was convenient to have Stark create him. You're stuck making a movie about a Pym who creates shrinking/growing technology and doesn't have much else to do, and you're stuck making the movie about Lang instead because nothing is really driving Pym's character. In that scenario, I think you've missed a huge opportunity.

Perhaps the government tapped Stark to make an army of Iron Men in a new take on the Super Soldier program...using some of Banner's research, of course...naturally, one prototype goes mad.

I think you've nailed it.
Conjecture, of course, so I won't spoiler-tag it, but maybe what happens is this:

*End of IM3: Tony test-flies his new Deep Space Suit. For whatever reason.....mysterious signal from space, possible new alien threat, he's going looking for Peter Quill for whatever reason --- anything. Turns out that Thanos is luring him into a trap, and captures him.

*End of GOTG: After all the events of GOTG, in which the gang presumably takes on Thanos unsuccessfully, they learn that he has an earthling captive: Tony Stark. Hell, just to mix it up even further: maybe he's even mind-controlled and enslaved to Thanos' will. Or maybe not --- that's just bonus stuff.

*Avengers 2: Tony Stark *is* out of commission. He spends, say, the first two reels as Thanos' captive, and is rarely if ever seen. That leaves the Avengers and the Guardians to team up and not only take down Thanos, but also the mission becomes much more "personal" (remember that quote....?), because they're trying to save their friend. Third reel features Tony back in action, and the whole gang gets to whale away on bad ol' Thanos.

I think you've nailed it.
Conjecture, of course, so I won't spoiler-tag it, but maybe what happens is this:

*End of IM3: Tony test-flies his new Deep Space Suit. For whatever reason.....mysterious signal from space, possible new alien threat, he's going looking for Peter Quill for whatever reason --- anything. Turns out that Thanos is luring him into a trap, and captures him.

*End of GOTG: After all the events of GOTG, in which the gang presumably takes on Thanos unsuccessfully, they learn that he has an earthling captive: Tony Stark. Hell, just to mix it up even further: maybe he's even mind-controlled and enslaved to Thanos' will. Or maybe not --- that's just bonus stuff.

*Avengers 2: Tony Stark *is* out of commission. He spends, say, the first two reels as Thanos' captive, and is rarely if ever seen. That leaves the Avengers and the Guardians to team up and not only take down Thanos, but also the mission becomes much more "personal" (remember that quote....?), because they're trying to save their friend. Third reel features Tony back in action, and the whole gang gets to whale away on bad ol' Thanos.

This seems like a plausible route. I'm thinking that if the Infinity Gauntlet is involved though, Tony will be "killed" by Thanos at the beginning of A2 which starts out with Tony in space. Here's what I'm thinking:

-End of IM3: Sometime after he defeats the Mandarin, Tony is compelled to go into space after what he saw in the Avengers and the events that transpire on Earth in IM3. Basically, he wants time to get away from it all and remembers what both frightened and fascinated him in the Avengers, and decides to tackle it head first. Following a signal he discovers something related to the cosmic Marvel U (maybe another Chitauri ship, Thanos' rock, the Guardians, who knows)

-End of GotG: A scene involving Tony that picks up from where the IM3 scene ends. Tony is discovered by Thanos somehow who has possession of the Infinity Gauntlet now after the events of GotG.

-Beginning of A2: Tony is killed by Thanos using the Infinity Gauntlet in a sequence which involves the Guardians. SHIELD and the others will also be alerted by the fact Tony has been missing for a while.

In this scenario IM3's end credits scene chronologically takes place after GotG, though we won't realize it at the time. The Guardians will also be intimately involved in the plot of A2 right off the bat if they're present when Tony is "killed" and will have a connection to the Avengers. It also works as a direct sequel to the Avengers (as in you don't have to watch the previous phase 2 films) because it would be easy for the audience to accept that Tony went into space after witnessing it (Tony, not the audience) in the first Avengers. It would also pick up where the first Avengers left off with teasing the "death" of Tony only to actually do it in the sequel. Sounds very Joss as well.

They defeated Loki and the Chitauri. They'll drive back Thanos and save the universe. I can see Ultron being created in the film passively, and then all of a sudden, he strikes out of nowhere in the third Avengers.

You don't have to use the impersonal "people" when you're directing something towards me. I can take it. And of course I realize that this isn't a direct translation from the comics. But I think you miss the point.

I and others have been arguing that from a storytelling perspective, it is important to keep in mind that Ant-Man indeed will be joining the MCU, which means that the opportunity is there to be true to the characters both as they have been written in the comics as well as how they have been/will be portrayed onscreen, and that is the better option.

We've seen the Stark-technology-turned-against-him storyline a few times already (and we'll see what happens in IM3). So a Stark-invents-Ultron/JARVIS-and-then-Ultron-turns-against-him story would probably be easy to do; I'm sure we can imagine him dealing with the guilt of seeing his technology turning into a vehicle of destruction, and his determination to right the wrong. I bet we can all picture it. Probably because we've seen it before. Twice (maybe three times).

Now picture instead a brilliant scientist, similar to Stark in intelligence and ambition, but wholly dissimilar to Stark in his lifestyle and attitude towards violence and war. Picture a gentle man who seeks the scientific means to resolve conflict and achieve peace through the ideals of pacifism and collaboration. Imagine his hubris as he fathers an intelligence based on his own brain pattern, foolishly intending to create the ultimate peace-keeping machine, and imagine his horror in seeing his creation mirroring the broken, violent humanity within himself, a monster bent on destroying the very thing he was looking to accomplish. And imagine that driving him into a deep sense of self-doubt and depression, not determination. This isn't a battle between Stark and his guilt--this is a battle between Pym and his very soul.

Now imagine an Ant-Man character who could have been that man but instead kind of has to sit around because it was convenient to have Stark create him. You're stuck making a movie about a Pym who creates shrinking/growing technology and doesn't have much else to do, and you're stuck making the movie about Lang instead because nothing is really driving Pym's character. In that scenario, I think you've missed a huge opportunity.

Thank you. We know that Ant-Man is happening and if all of the things that typically drive the Pym character are stripped from him what will be left with? All of these individual films inform and impact the larger MCU, so without Pym's classic storyline I struggle to come up with anything that Pym will bring to the table.

I think you've nailed it.
Conjecture, of course, so I won't spoiler-tag it, but maybe what happens is this:

*End of IM3: Tony test-flies his new Deep Space Suit. For whatever reason.....mysterious signal from space, possible new alien threat, he's going looking for Peter Quill for whatever reason --- anything. Turns out that Thanos is luring him into a trap, and captures him.

*End of GOTG: After all the events of GOTG, in which the gang presumably takes on Thanos unsuccessfully, they learn that he has an earthling captive: Tony Stark. Hell, just to mix it up even further: maybe he's even mind-controlled and enslaved to Thanos' will. Or maybe not --- that's just bonus stuff.

*Avengers 2: Tony Stark *is* out of commission. He spends, say, the first two reels as Thanos' captive, and is rarely if ever seen. That leaves the Avengers and the Guardians to team up and not only take down Thanos, but also the mission becomes much more "personal" (remember that quote....?), because they're trying to save their friend. Third reel features Tony back in action, and the whole gang gets to whale away on bad ol' Thanos.

That bold part is spot-on. The way Tony endeared himself to the team at the end of Avengers makes it all the more personal.

Graphic novels of Super Bowl scoop did so well they are completely sold out! Issues and graphic novels! That's clue & how popular it is! RT

I'm thinking it really might be Death of Cap. As I posted earlier that logo looks like it's from Steve Rogers outfit when Bucky was posing as Cap. I think one of those comics is also a Death of Cap variant (and we know it can't be any of the X-Men, Spider-Man, or FF titles posted there). And, of course, Death of Cap issues and GN were sold out. He also posted this:

True, they'll have to come up with some specific reason for Pym to create Ultron to really differentiate it from Jarvis. But it's worth it to keep the meaty stuff in there, imo.

Easy enough to borrow or steal Tony's Jarvis tech and pattern it after his own brainwaves. One insertion into a custom built indestructible nanotech chassis later and voila!

Not that that's particularly clever of course. I did always like the idea that Tony based Jarvis personality on the Stark's family butler. But mostly I just like saying 'indestructible nanotech chassis'

__________________

"That was the edge Parker had; he knew that survival was more important than heroics. It isn't how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose.”
~ Richard Stark, Deadly Edge

I know the BuckyCap is recent but it's really no different than RhodeyIronMan or ThunderstrikeThor or whatever else - a short-lived hiatus from the main character that only works because readers are so used to reading about the big icon whose title it was for hundreds of issues.

That doesn't really translate to screen. Maybe if this was like James Bond and they were on their 25th film they'd consider killing off Cap and replacing him with Cap-lite.